Report Says Rules Favor Incumbents Over Rivals

By MICHAEL COOPER

Published: September 6, 2006

New York City's system of publicly financed campaigns has not done enough to foster competitive races when incumbents seek re-election, the city's Campaign Finance Board found in a report released yesterday that calls for overhauling the system.

The report says that the city's program ''cannot be judged a success if it helps create vibrant competition on an even playing field only in instances of open-seat races.''

The board singled out the campaign finance rules for City Council elections as particularly needing drastic changes, saying that the dearth of competitive elections in 2005 highlighted the need to rewrite the laws.

The board recommended limiting the amount of money that can be contributed to Council candidates to $250, down from the current $2,750; capping the amount that candidates can spend on Council elections at $100,000, down from the current $150,000, and tightening laws that currently allow some incumbents without serious challengers to receive tens of thousands of dollars in public matching funds anyway.

Even though the city offers candidates who qualify for the program $4 in public funds for every $1 they raise, incumbent City Council candidates still had huge advantages when it came to raising money for last year's elections.

Incumbents raised an average of $161,000 last year, while challengers raised an average of only $31,000, the report said.

Sandra Mullin, the communications director for the City Council, which would have to approve any changes, said, ''We'll review the report carefully with our members and determine what the Council can do to make the campaign finance reform process stronger and more fair.''

Over all, the board gave candidates $24 million in public matching funds in 2005, the report said.

The report, ''Public Dollars for the Public Good: A Report on the 2005 Elections,'' can be found online at www.nyccfb.info.

Although many of the most noteworthy proposals were directed at City Council races, the board made a number of other recommendations with citywide implications.

It called on the city to pass laws limiting the ability of concerns that do business with the city to contribute to campaigns, and said that if the city fails to act the board will probably draft new rules itself.

It called for lowering the contribution limits across the board, with a cap of $4,000 for citywide candidates, down from $4,950, and a cap of $3,000 for borough presidents, down from $3,850.

Federal candidates, by contrast, can receive individual contributions of $4,200 for primary and general elections. Statewide candidates can receive up to $50,100, and there are loopholes for getting around those high limits.

The board also recommended banning all contributions from organizations, which accounted for most of the 10 largest contributors in the 2005 elections.

Although the city has already banned corporate contributions to campaigns, contributions from partnerships, limited liability corporations, political action committees and unions continue to pour into campaign accounts, disproportionately benefiting incumbents, the report said.

The board continues to wrestle with ways to make its program meaningful in cases like last year's mayoral election, when a wealthy candidate opts out of the program.

In 2005 Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg decided to forgo the board's spending limits and matching funds and spent $84.6 million of his own money on his re-election.

Although the city passed a law in 2004 that allowed Mr. Bloomberg's challenger, Fernando Ferrer, to qualify for additional public matching funds, Mr. Ferrer was not able to take full advantage of the new laws because he could not raise enough money.

And Mayor Bloomberg's decision to skip a debate at the Apollo Theater that was sponsored by the Campaign Finance Board led the board to recommend new incentives for leading candidates to take part in board-sponsored debates even if they opt out of the campaign finance program.

It called for giving those who participate in the debates more money, in the form of grants or bonuses, when their opponents decline to debate.